For years, the idea of gender quotas in the boardroom has sparked fierce debate. 

Supporters have hailed them as a long-overdue correction to decades of male dominance at the top of global business. Critics, meanwhile, have dismissed them as political box-ticking exercises – symbolic gestures that look good on paper but change little behind closed doors. 

After all, it’s one thing to appoint more women to a company’s board of directors. It’s another to give them real influence over the decisions that matter most: executive pay, strategy, risk management and senior appointments. 

Those decisions are rarely made by the full board. Instead, they are shaped in smaller, powerful groups known as major board committees – the inner sanctum of corporate power. 

So, do gender quotas genuinely open the door to influence? Or do they simply move women into the room while keeping power firmly in the same hands? 

The answer may surprise you. 

Evidence from thousands of companies suggests that quotas do more than improve headline numbers. According to new research by emlyon business school finds that, in many cases, quotas change who gets to shape decisions at the very top – increasing the likelihood that women sit on the most powerful board committees, not just on the board itself. 

But there’s a catch. 

Whether women gain real authority depends heavily on who owns the company. While governments and institutional investors appear to push for meaningful inclusion, family-owned firms are far more resistant. 

Quotas that change who holds the reins

Major board committees, such as audit, remuneration and nomination committees, are widely regarded as the nerve centres of corporate governance. 

They determine who runs the company, how much executives are paid, how risks are managed and which strategic priorities take precedence. 

For decades, these committees have tended to be dominated by a narrow group – often older, male insiders with long-standing personal and professional ties. 

The new evidence suggests that quotas can help disrupt this pattern, but only under certain conditions. 

Drawing on data from 3,500 publicly listed companies across 25 countries, the emlyon study examined how national gender quotas interact with corporate ownership structures to shape women’s access to major board committees. 

The research, led by Professor Jean-Luc Arregle, Professor of International Strategy at emlyon business school, alongside an international team of co-authors, asked one central question: when quotas are introduced, do companies merely comply on the surface – or do they actually share power? 

The findings point to something more substantial than token gestures. 

Companies operating under quota rules were more likely to appoint women to major board committees relative to their overall presence on boards of directors. Instead of simply being added to boards, women were being given influence. 

“These findings alleviate our concerns that quota passing would result in tokenism,” says Professor Arregle. “Instead of appointing women to boards while refusing to grant them influential positions, firms adopted practices that genuinely challenged existing power structures.” 

Ownership: the hidden gatekeeper

One of the clearest themes to emerge is the role played by corporate ownership. 

Companies backed by institutional investors, such as pension funds and asset managers, were more likely to support women’s inclusion on major board committees. State-owned firms showed a similar tendency. 

Family-owned businesses, however, told a different story. Even where national quotas existed, family-controlled companies were less likely to place women in influential committee roles. 

According to the researchers, this appears to reflect more conservative internal norms and a greater resistance to external pressure. 

Family owners, the analysis suggests, are less susceptible to shifting societal expectations and more inclined to retain traditional power structures. 

A sobering snapshot of corporate leadership

Despite the positive effect of quotas in many firms, the overall picture of gender balance at the top remains stark. 

Professor Arregle points to figures that underline just how limited female representation still is. 

“In our data sample, women are underrepresented in all key corporate leadership positions,” he says. “Only 1.36 per cent of CEOs are women, and only 1.75 per cent of companies have a female board chair. In 49 per cent of firms, there was not a single woman on a major board committee.” 

The numbers suggest that progress, while real, remains fragile and uneven. 

Why this matters beyond appearances

The implications extend beyond corporate image and compliance.

For policymakers, the message is that gender quotas can reshape behaviour inside companies – not just how they present themselves publicly. 

For institutional investors and governance campaigners, the findings reinforce the idea that ownership brings responsibility. Those with influence can push for inclusion that goes beyond minimum requirements. 

And for family-owned firms, the evidence raises difficult questions about long-term competitiveness. 

Holding on to traditional governance norms may preserve control in the short term, but it risks narrowing talent pools, limiting perspectives and falling out of step with wider social change. 

Making space for women in positions of real authority is increasingly tied to how companies govern, adapt and perform in a changing world. 

By, Peter Remon

Interested in this topic? You might also like this…